Featured Revised Dispensationalism

You need to read Blaising's chapter in Dispie history (ch. 1) as well as Bateman's in a different book.

Though I'm not a dispie, I was an uber-dispie at one time having 2 articles published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology. I was an expert at one time. So I know what I am talking about.

 

I am much like you are except I reject the idea that I should view scripture through the lens of either of those systems. While both are there I do not use them as a lens. Scripture is clear enough without having to use some systematic lens.

 

I would say it is difficult to be any kind of true dispensationalist w/o reading Ryrie's book on the subject. Alas, I do not recall if he addressed it. But those other 2 sources I mentioned do.

 

And now out of my own sense of curiosity, what convinced you in the other direction? PM me if you prefer.

 

Ryrie does not talk about revised dispensationalism in his book Dispensationalism but he, Walvoord, and MacArthur have been called revised dispensationalist. Apparently that term came in to usage after publication of the New Scofield Bible, perhaps the one where they eliminated Scofield's reference to the Song of Solomon as a picture of the love of Jesus Christ for His Church. Can't have the Church in the Old Testament. The source can be found on the web.

Ryrie does discuss progressive dispensationalism and hyper-dispensationalism along with his own brand, whatever that is..

 

PM is not necessary... but I don't want to hijack this thread. This blog post by an Amill had a similar experience to me. Like most, you can't put your finger on 1 thing but a multitude of things that made it a journey.

 

Hyper Dispys basically see the Church started later on, not at pentacost, and basically see only the Pauline Epistles as the books for us to study and live by now


Progressives ones seem to be getting close to new Covenant theology, as they blur distinction between isreal and the church, and seem to be heading to historical pre mil views!

 

One thing real classic Dispt seemed to affirm was that isreal was under the law for salvation, the church now under grace, but don't see that there were ver 2 different ways God saved sinners!

 

Which I think Y1 is pointing out the major error of Classical Dispos and the great need for revision.

 

Yes, as even I noticed that seemed to be what the 1917 Scofield edition was affirming, that jews were saved by God under the Law, and the Church saved now by grace!

 

The blog was an excellent read. Following is an excerpt:

One objection I have to premillennialism which the writer did not mention is:

Jesus Christ returns in the full Glory of the Godhead yet premillennialists must believe that mortal man can observe that Glory and live. I believe Scripture teaches otherwise.

 

How about answering how is satan bound today, and that we are under the messianic Age, and yet this Worlsd is not running as it will when Messiah is really reigning over it?

 

What if the picture of Satan bound is just another symbol of defeat?

And if the Messianic Age or the Kingdom of God has begun... Jesus as the firstfruits of new creation that is... started but the old age continued.

Think of it this way. The Jews pictured the present evil age to end at the appearing of Messiah who would usher in the age to come or the age of life (which is what "eternal life" in the NT actually translates to). But Jesus presented a different scenario. The age to come has begun at his resurrection, but the present evil age continues until he returns. Thus we live in the time between the times.